WTC Collapses

The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal, Round 2

This is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

Relative to the building and fires that have engulfed other skyscrapers, yes. I personally know that I'm not being dishonest, but you can think otherwise if you wish. If Headspin, psikey or Tony would like to put in their 2 cents here as to the accuracy of my statement, that would be fine.

What draws you to that conclusion? I've drawn the opposite one.

I would argue that I tend to believe the arguments that fit -all- the data best. Since there is already plenty of evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions, it only makes sense that the molten metal was, indeed, molten iron produced by aluminothtermite/thermite reactions. You, ofcourse, are coming from the opposite side; for you, the evidence is on the side of the official story and so naturally when you see something that doesn't fit with that model, your first idea is to see if said idea can be discarded in favor of one that is supported by the official story.

There's lots of it, as I think Headspin has already pointed out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The intensity of the WTC fires and the evidence of thermite use, Round 2

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

I don't agree with the 'ofcourse' bit, but I can agree that it's a reasonable assertion. It doesn't change the fact that there still wasn't all that much fire in the rest of the building, relative to the size of the building.

The point itself is the one that's not crucial. I'm fine with the idea that the woman went to the coldest part of the building. I believe the crucial point is, was there enough fire to bring the skyscraper toppling down at near free fall speeds, when fires that were stronger and lasted longer in other skyscrapers have never managed such a feet? In a word, no.

No, it generated a bit of heat too, ofcourse, but relative to the building's size, even the official story seems to believe that the initial fire didn't do much. The idea that it did a whole lot more -after- the initiation is a point that they jump through quite a lot of magical hoops in order to get to, but people with their eye on the ball such as Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have shown up the official story's logical fallacies in this area quite well.

Alright, now that Headspin has agreed with you, I will allow that there may well have been no concrete core. However, there certainly -was- a core, something that the 9/11 Commission Report denies altogether, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft:

In point of fact, there was a very strong core. Quoting from 9/11 Research, a source that has always proven to be quite reliable and that Headspin approves of:

No, it doesn't. The reason the Windsor tower in Madrid suffered a partial collapse is because it was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. To find out more about why the Windsor tower suffered a partial, gradual collapse, feel free to take another look at the page I've shown you many a time.

I do remember you producing a counter but I don't remember it and, unlike me, you frequently don't seem to believe in even linking or providing excerpts our counters, trusting I'll remember all the information from the hundreds of posts without a hitch. Fortunately for you, I don't expect so much on your part.

In any case, Tony has mentioned that there may indeed have been bowing but that it was probably caused by the explosive charges.

It has been well established that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel.[/quote]

Perhaps for it to sag a few inches; but that's a far cry from the building collapsing at near free fall speeds.

What I'd like to know is why. None of the evidence I've seen supports anything other then that the twin towers were some of the most resilient skyscrapers ever built; perhaps the very strongest.

9/11 Research provides some compelling evidence supporting this assertion. Take, for instance, the Richard Toth Telegram, which is mentioned in 9/11 Research's article, "Towers' Design Parameters":
The Richard Roth Telegram:

Maybe, but it'd be for the wrong reasons. In point of fact, the twin towers, set the standard, as 9/11 Research makes clear:

Yes, let's consider the McCormick Place, by all means.

By all means, let's continue to consider that building as well.

Pick the fire test and I'll fashion my argument (or, perhaps more likely, link to an argument already well fashioned).

I don't know anything on whether WTC 5 had buckling and what that would or what not mean. However, 9/11 Research goes into some detail as to the reason for -damage- to WTC 5:

If I recall, you have only cited 2 examples that 9/11 Research hasn't covered. If you mentioned them again, however, perhaps I could google up some interesting points regarding those collapses as well.

You were referring to my assertion that thermite accounted for some of the fires. You called it a baseless rationalization, I countered that the molten metal that was clearly not pure aluminum is strong evidence that thermite was indeed being ignited.

Thermite does this, yes.

Nanothermite does this, yes.

Not sure if it can do this, Headspin probably knows.

It can definitely be used as an incendiary, yes.

I contend that perhaps both thermite and nanothermite were used.

What we have here is something like a puzzle. You try to fit the pieces together. I didn't start out with the conclusion that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. In point of fact, I started out with the official story's version, that the planes and the fires they initiated were the culprits. However, after a careful analysis of the evidence at hand, I found that this story didn't hold water. I also found that the theory that something else did it, such as explosives, had a lot more evidence. This is how I formed that conclusion. Simply because a piece fits doesn't mean that it's wrong. It also doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to ascertain if the premise is false. But you do need to start with premises in order to then test them.

Yes. It's called an alumino-thermic reaction. And from everything I've seen, you can't just stick some aluminum and some iron together and presto. If memory serves, it has to be prepared as thermite beforehand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was quoting the figure mentioned in the two sources I linked to. One of them was 911research.

I looked and couldn't see 1150 either. There were however many figures well over 600 and approaching 1000C.

Can you please rephrase that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kevin Ryan and NIST's 2004 Analysis of Structural Steel Update, Round 2

This post is in response to the 3rd and final part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

So what? The -point- is that most perimeter panels fond saw no temperature beyond 250C. The partial reason for this, ofcourse, is that that panels showing temperatures radically above 250C were generally removed before the official investigators could see them. There is evidence, however, that not all of them were removed fast enough, as evidenced by the articles from James Glanz and Kenneth Chang that claim that WTC investigators Astaneh and Barnett found evidence that some of the steel had vaporized/evaporated.

So?

The study says that most of the perimeter panels didn't go beyond 250C. For some reason, they don't seem to mention anything else (I think it'd really be interesting to see an analysis of the steel at critical junctures in the building, for instance).

I've heard this before. What I'd like to know is why this wasn't included in the interim NIST report that Kevin Ryan saw. Could you cite your source?

By all means, show me these allegedly willfully blind conspiracists don't want to see.

And I believe I will once again ask you, why do you suppose that is?

I'm not trying to represent otherwise. I simply believe that if Astaneh is indeed being honest with the public, he simply didn't have the relevant data to realize that controlled demolitions are the most feasible explanation for the WTC build collapses.

You asked a question, I answered it. Pay attention.

I think that remark is best applied to yourself, as I just made clear.

And then magic time eh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

? Anyway, how much is 'enough' in official story land?

Ah, so if it's possible, then it must be so? I believe Kevin Ryan calculated the possibility to be -very- slim.

 

People mostly talk as though LOGIC is based on words but the way reality works does not care about language. Is it LOGICAL to call Europe a continent when there is no water separating it from Asia? Does calling an argument a strawman necessarily make it one?

This is why I suggested the computer simulation with 5 levels removed for the 60 foot, 44 mph drop. That would be far worse damage than plane and fires could possibly do and therefore eliminate arguments about how hot the fires were and how much damage they did.

But regardless of how hot the fires got there is still the question of how much steel was on the levels with the fires. The more steel the more conduction the more difficult it would be to heat so the more time it would take. People are assuming it had to be real hot for the buildings to come down that soon. So it comes back to BELIEF because if they entertain the possibility that the fires couldn't do it then they have to look for another explanation. WHICH THEY DON'T WANT TO DO!!!

So there are THREE REASONS for wanting to know the steel and concrete on every level.

#1. Computing the energy that went into building deflection because the energy that did structural damage cannot be computed otherwise.

#2. Assessing the damage the fires could do because the more steel the less damage possible in the available time. There is a 56 minute limit on the south tower and a 102 minute limit on the north.

#3. Analyzing the impact time of a supposed gravitational collapse from the top. It is the structural damage done by the plane combined with the weakening by the fire that supposedly makes the collapse possible. But the conservation of momentum would be a factor in the collapse time therfore the vertical distribution of steel and concrete must be known to analyze the collapse.

All of them involve physics.

But if an analysis done on the 5 STORY GAP says the lower 89 stories would not collapse at all or would take more than one minute to come down then all the debating over the last SEVEN YEARS has a serious problem. We would need to know why the EXPERTS were not explaining to everyone why that information was necessary six or more years ago and how the NIST could make a 10,000 page report that does not even specify the concrete and hundreds of EXPERTS are not screaming about it.

Getting involved in discussing this on any website is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. If someone wants to discuss it then they need to be willing to stretch their minds to encompass the problem. If they are not, then why do they bother?

Even if somone doesn't know how to compute how much steel is necessary to support so many tens of thousands of tons, which I do not, that is no reason to be impressed by people that do. It is not like they figured it out how to do it for themselves. They just went to school and were taught it. Knowledge is not intelligence. The Empire State Building is 77 years old and this ain't rocket science.

psik

 

His word. The opposing comments of the two is something of a stalemate. However as I have said a couple of times, structures have failed before when tested with conditions that they were supposedly designed for. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

”All this evidence” ? Keep exaggerating. You are referring to one analysis which another designer claims doesn’t even take into account the fuel, and even if it did show up it may be incorrect. As I said, structures have collapsed before when tested by conditions that they were supposedly designed for. You are getting desperate if you think a missing analysis is the proof of a conspiracy.

It is just speculation like yours.

I was making a point about our baseless speculation. When you read my more recent responses you will see that I think that there was some sort of analysis done.

Don’t know.

Steel was at the site for six months. Anyone could have grabbed a piece. The steel at the site was investigated and showed signs of high temperatures. If you were covering your tracks you would not take down the towers in such a manner that the conspiracy theorists claim. You would have evidence lying there for months which anyone could take. If you were really trying to cover your tracks you would just fly planes into the damn buildings without putting bombs or incendiaries in the buildings. It’s such a stupid conspiracy theory.

When you take all the evidence into account, and actually assess the claims made by the 911 conspiracy theorists then no it isn’t reasonable to think there is a conspiracy. Your only source of information is conspiracy sites Scott and you deeply believe them like a religion even when the flaws have been pointed out. Hey you thought that a missile hit the pentagon and only abandoned that to jump on the absurd flyover theory. Your conclusions are rarely ‘reasonable’

Lets look at his personal statement.
“
Buildings collapsed all by "controlled demolition" methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physiscs were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.
“

Wow that poorly informed ramble completely trumps the peer reviewed papers by the engineers who were at the site!

That’s fine Scott but you said, “sites such as the peer reviewed "The Journal for 9/11 studies"”. Understand that their ‘peer review’ is not by people most qualified to do so.

.. and we have just seen a good example of how much these people know before they add their name.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While we are talking about ae911, here is another site for you to read if you are bored one day.
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php

 

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 2

This post is in response to shaman's post 680 in this thread.

Alright, I believe the 4.6 billion was for the twin towers. In the case of the twin towers, it's a little more complex. However, in the case of WTC 7, 9/11 Research, in its article "Controlling Interests" has this to say:

So his profits were clearly around $500 million as the article states. You mention that rebuilding WTC 7 cost 6.3 billion. I'd like to see your source just to confirm this, but it doesn't affect my argument. He was under no obligation to rebuild it. If he did so, it was probably to make even more money in the long run through rents.

 

Nano-thermite is not the same as Thermite

This post is in response to Buffalo Roam's post 691 in this thread.

Uh, no.

I've probably done more research in the last few months then anyone here; unlike Tony, I'm not an engineer of any sort, unlike psikey I have no strong background in physics and Headspin's been at this way longer then I have. Despite what you think, Headspin actually knows quite a bit about thermite; I see no point in toiling trying to answer your question when Headspin could probably do it with ease.

Nano-thermite and thermite are not the same. Nano thermite is, indeed, explosive. Thermite is not.

In essence, shaped charges? I'm not against the idea, although I believe I've heard that nano thermite could have been applied like a coat of paint is applied.

I believe you're still only thinking of thermite, not nano thermite.

Sure. Not nano thermite though.

 

This post is in response to John99's post 684 in this thread.

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 5

This post is in response to shaman's post 715 in this thread.

He was never obligated to rebuild. You seem to be of the view that he had paid for the buildings in full, when in fact he did nothing of the sort. His investment in the WTC buildings was rewarded handsomely.

If he had actually paid for the items in full, that would be one thing. But he didn't. So the insurance awards were quite profitable.

Ah, missed the $10 million per month bit.

 

Possible causes for the explosions before the collapse of the twin towers

This post is in response to leopold99's post 716 in this thread.

I believe they made it clear that the most likely possibility is that they were from explosives.

I think for myself, despite what you seem to think.

Magic jet fuel?

I've heard the magic jet fuel explanation, which is apparently supported by NIST (they just don't admit the jet fuel would have to be magical).

 

Must be a Canadian band.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

rush is a canadian band. in my opinion one of the best bands ever to be conceived.

 

I agree. i saw them in the 80s. I have a very rare bootleg demo tape somewhere, recorded before the release of their first album.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(sorry, off topic)

 

no doubt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, sometimes talking so long about 9/11 can get a bit tiring. Been thinking of taking a World of Warcraft break myself. Anyway, never seen Rush live but one of my mexican musician uncles let me see a dvd with them; pretty good stuff

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I like a lot of groups. Right now I'm listening to Mazzy Star's "fade into you". Not really a fan of a lot of her other songs, but I really like that one.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2136864&postcount=1104

What does your use of "as well" mean in that post?

If YOU have something thing to say about anything being incorrect in FALL OF PHYSICS then why don't you just explain what it is?

psik

 

Ah yes, that's the John I know; always quick on the draw with an unsubstantiated assumption

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

; you may be able to make it on the WTC collapses since you're an engineer, but when you -don't- know much about something, it just looks silly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://music.yahoo.com/ar-295375-bio--OK-Go

 

never mind.

 

I suppose only leopold knows; perhaps he was alluding to others here calling you names, perhaps he was, in fact, referring to himself. No evidence either way really :shrug:.

Wondering if perhaps you missed my post in response to leopold:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2137183&postcount=1159